---------------------------------

SIGGRAPH 2005 Paper Review Form 

This form will be parsed by an automated system so it is 
very important that your response to each question be 
entered between the tags. Example: <ReviewQuestion> Your 
response here </ReviewQuestion>

You must make sure you do not delete any of the tags or 
alter the header. 

It is also important that the entire form be edited only in 
plain text, never as HTML or Word or other formats and do 
not include any attachments.

When your review is complete, please email it to

    papers-review@siggraph.org

When your review is submitted successfully you will receive 
a confirmation message, which you should peruse to be sure 
that your review has been correctly parsed.

If there is an error with your review you will not see a 
confirmation immediately. Janet McAndless, the Papers 
Program Coordinator, will try to fix the error and resubmit
the review for you. If she cannot correct the problem easily
she will contact you. Once the review is corrected and sent
into the system with out any problems you will get a 
confirmation. If you don't recieve a confirmation of your 
review within 2 days, you might contact Janet directly
(papersadmin@siggraph.org).
	 
-- IMPORTANT: You must insert carriage returns in your text 
to retain formatting. Please do not exceed 80 columns in 
your text blocks.

-- IMPORTANT: If you submit two review forms for the same 
Paper by email, the second will completely overwrite and 
replace the first. To append or update a previously 
submitted review, you _must_ resubmit a completely filled 
out email review form with your changes. We also suggest 
you keep a copy of all your reviews as a precaution.

Before writing your review, please be familiar with the 
SIGGRAPH 2005 papers call for participation, and in 
particular with its discussion of paper categories and 
paper length.  The call is available at:

 http://www.siggraph.org/s2005/main.php?f=cfp&p=papers

The relevant length discussion is reproduced at the end of
this form.  The length of most submissions is obvious, 
and is denoted explicitly on unformatted submissions.  

Review instructions and the SIGGRAPH Ethics Policy are 
available at:
 http://www.siggraph.org/s2005/main.php?f=cfp&p=papers&s=review

The PDF of the paper and any other available review materials can be found by logging in to the esub system at 
http://www.siggraph.org/cgi-bin/cgi/mySig.html

Follow the 'Papers' link under Reviewer and Committee Access.

Questions? Please contact the Papers program chair 
(papers@siggraph.org), or Janet McAndless, Papers 
Program Coordinator (papersadmin@siggraph.org).


<Header> 
Reviewer: James Davis
UserID: jedavis
Password: *******-*******
SubmissionID: X
Title: X
</Header> 

1) Briefly describe the paper and its contribution to computer 
graphics and interactive techniques. Please give your assessment
of the scope and magnitude of the paper's contribution.
<BriefDescription>
</BriefDescription>

2) Is the exposition clear?  How could it be improved?
<ExpositionClear>
</ExpositionClear>

3) Are the references adequate?  List any references that are needed.
<AdequateReferences>
</AdequateReferences>

4) Could the work be reproduced by one or more skilled graduate 
students?  Are all important algorithmic or system details discussed 
adequately?  Are the limitations and drawbacks of the work clear?
<Reproducibility>
</Reproducibility>

5) Please rate this paper on a continuous scale from 1 to 5, where: 
1 = Reject, 2 = Doubtful, 3 = Possibly accept, 4 = Probably accept,
5 = Accept. Please base your rating on the paper as it was submitted.
<Rating>
</Rating>

6) Please rate your expertise in the subject area of the paper on a 
continuous scale from 1 to 3, where: 1=Tyro, 2=Journeyman, 3=Expert.
<Expertise>
</Expertise>

7) Explain your rating by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of
the submission.  Include suggestions for improvement and publication
alternatives, if appropriate. Be thorough -- your explanation will be of
highest importance for any committee discussion of the paper and will
be used by the authors to improve their work. Be fair -- the authors 
spent a lot of effort to prepare their submission, and your evaluation 
will be forwarded to them during the rebuttal period.
<ExplainYourRating>
</ExplainYourRating>

8) List here any questions that you want answered by the author(s) 
during the rebuttal period.
<RebuttalIssues>
</RebuttalIssues>

9) You may enter private comments for the papers committee here.  
These comments will not be sent to the paper author(s).
<PrivateComments>
</PrivateComments>

-------------------------------------------------------

Paper Length

There is no arbitrary maximum length imposed on papers.  
However, reviewers are instructed to weigh the contribution 
of a paper relative to its length.  For example, a useful 
idea presented completely in four pages is more likely to 
be accepted than the same idea presented in eight pages.  
Papers longer than 8-10 pages must make a very significant 
contribution to be accepted.